Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq appeared before London’s Royal Courts of Justice on Thursday 9 October, to continue its legal challenge against the UK government’s licensing of weapons parts, specifically components for the F-35 fighter jet, which are exported from the UK to Israel, and are used in the occupation’s fighter jets carrying out the genocide in Gaza. This case addresses the UK’s role under international law concerning arms sales linked to the conflict in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territory.
UK is violating its legal obligations by supplying genocidal Israel with F-35 parts
Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) first launched their challenge in December 2023, arguing that the UK’s continued licensing of weapons to the Israeli occupation contributes to serious violations of international humanitarian law, including the genocide in Gaza.
After the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office identified a ‘clear risk’ that weapons might be used to commit breaches of international law, the UK government suspended many arms export licenses to the Israeli regime, in September 2024, but made an exception for F-35 fighter jet parts, because it argued that stopping the supply of these components would disrupt the global supply chain of the F-35 programme, which it said is not only critical for Israel but also for the UK’s security and defence commitments, including NATO.
It claimed that stopping exports of these parts risked harming Britain’s national security and the operation of allied military forces.
A hearing was held at the High Court in May of this year, in which the human rights organisations claimed that allowing these parts to continue to be exported to the the Israeli occupation enables it to use its F-35 jets in military operations in Gaza, where war crimes and crimes against humanity have been documented.
The High Court judgment in June 2025 dismissed their challenge, and the court concluded that it could not review the government’s decision-making process on licensing these weapons parts, ruling that questions about the government’s assessment of genocide were outside the court’s authority to decide. The court also found no legal flaws in the government’s licensing procedures.
If the courts cannot hold the government to account on matters of international law who can?
The Court of Appeal heard three of Al-Haq’s grounds of appeal. These are the following:
The High Court’s ruling that it has no jurisdiction over the government’s decision raises serious constitutional questions and demonstrates a ‘glaring gap in accountability’.The UK’s international legal obligations, including the duty to prevent genocide, have been received into UK common law and must be considered when assessing the legality of the F-35 parts exemption.The High Court misunderstood parts of Al-Haq’s legal arguments, especially regarding the scope of the challenge and how it relates to UK compliance with international law, rather than the conduct of other states directly.
The Court of Appeal is expected to issue its judgment later this year. If it finds in favour of Al-Haq, this would be huge, and could lead to an order suspending all arms export licenses related to the F-35 parts. It would set a legal precedent confirming that the duty to prevent genocide is enforceable in UK courts and must be considered when granting export licenses.
If the appeal is rejected, Al-Haq may try and bring the case to the UK Supreme Court, though that would require further permission.
Al-Haq: UK ‘utterly complicit’ in genocide
In September, 2025, a United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry report found the Israeli regime has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. This finding has strengthened calls for a full international arms embargo against Israel. Also last month, Trump also imposed sanctions on Al-Haq, along with other Palestinian rights groups, for working with the International Criminal Court (ICC) on investigations into Israeli occupation human rights violations.
Shawan Jabarin, Director of Al-Haq, has called the UK ‘utterly complicit’ in genocide, and said in a statement:
The UK government must be held accountable for its role in enabling grave crimes. Allowing exports of F-35 components is complicity in genocide.
A spokesperson for the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office defended the government’s export control regime, saying:
The UK operates rigorous controls and only issues licences where there is no clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law”.
75 UK companies involved in F-35 production for Israel
Over 15% by value of every F-35 aircraft produced is made in the UK, and at least 75 UK companies are involved in the production of the F-35. The fighter jet has been used in Gaza, including to bomb the Al-Mawasi ‘safe zone’, and the Israeli regime has also used the F-35 to attack Yemen, Iran, Lebanon and Syria.
All states have a legal duty to prevent and stop genocide, and this means not exporting weapons to a country which is known to be the perpetrator of these mass atrocities. The UK has a legal obligation to stop exporting weapons to the Israeli occupation.
Protesters demand an end to arms exports to the Israeli occupation
The case has attracted support from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Campaign Against Arms Trade, and other international NGOs who stress the importance of enforcing legal obligations related to arms transfers and human rights protection.
Protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice, demanding that the UK Stops Arming Israel:
Campaign Against Arms Trade’s Emily Apple said:
Instead of upholding international law, this government has chosen to repeatedly repress and demonise pro-Palestinian protests. However, we will not be silenced. If our government and our courts refuse to act, it is down to ordinary people to take action to prevent the UK’s complicity in Israel’s horrendous war crimes.
This case highlights fundamental questions about the rule of law, government accountability, and the responsibilities of arms-exporting states in conflicts involving grave human rights abuses.
Featured image and additional images supplied
By Charlie Jaay
From Canary via this RSS feed